Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barnard v. Evans | [1925] 2 KB 794 |
The expression "cruelly ill-treat"" in s 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 means to "cause unnecessary suffering" and "applies to a case where a person wilfully causes pain to an animal without justification for so doing". It is sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the animal was caused to suffer unnecessarily, and the prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant knew that his actions were unnecessary. |
Case | |
| Roalstad v. City of Lafayette | 363 P.3d 790 (Col. Ct. App. Div. III , 2015) | --- P.3d ---- 2015 WL 5895396 (Col. Ct. App. Div. III , 2015) | The origins of this matter began when the City of Lafayette (City) charged Defendant/Appellant with violating its municipal ordinance regarding vicious animals. Defendant/Appellant requested a jury trial pursuant to C.R.S.A. § 16-10-109. The municipal court denied the request. Defendant/Appellant appealed the district court's dismissal of her C.R.C.P. 106 and declaratory judgment action in which she challenged the municipal court's denial of her request for a jury trial. The sole issue on appeal was whether the offense for which Defendant was charged under the City's ordinances was a “petty offense” under C.R.S.A. § 16-10-109, which would entitle her to a jury trial under that statute. Since the municipal ordinance imposed fines that met that definition and because it was not a crime at common law, the court concluded the offense met the definition of “petty offense;” Defendant/Appellant was therefore entitled to a jury trial in municipal court pursuant to C.R.S.A. § 16-10-109. Further, because the ordinance and the state Dangerous Dog law were counterparts and because the ordinance was criminal in nature, the vicious animal offense was not exempt from the “petty offense” definition. Accordingly, the district court’s order was reversed. | Case |
| Kanoa Inc., v. Clinton | 1 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (1998) |
Plaintiff cruise company filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to halt scientific research of the defendant government, alleging standing under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Marine Mammal Protection Act ("MMPA"), and the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). |
Case | |
| MT - Veterinary - CHAPTER 18. VETERINARY MEDICINE | MCA 37-18-101 to 37-18-807 | MT ST 37-18-101 to 37-18-807 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |
| IL - Domesticated Wild Animals Act - Chapter 510. Animals. | 510 I.L.C.S. 60/0.01 - 60/3 | IL ST CH 510 § 60/0.01 - 60/3 | All birds and wild animals in domestication, or kept in enclosures and reduced to possession, are declared to be objects of ownership and absolute title. When fur bearing animals are raised in captivity for breeding, such animals are considered domestic animals. The animals and the products made from them are agricultural products. | Statute |
| Commonwealth v. Duncan | 7 N.E.3d 469, cert. denied sub nom. Duncan v. Massachusetts, 135 S. Ct. 224, 190 L. Ed. 2d 170 (2014) | 467 Mass. 746 (2014) | This case deals specifically with the issue of whether or not the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment extends to police action undertaken to render emergency assistance to animals. In this particular case, police officers were called to defendant’s property after a neighbor reported that two of defendant’s dogs were deceased and a third dog looked emaciated after being left outside in inclement weather. After showing up to the defendant’s home, police contacted animal control who immediately took custody of all three dogs, despite defendant not being present. The court held that the emergency aid exception did apply to the emergency assistance of animals because it is consistent with public policy that is “in favor of minimizing animal suffering in a wide variety of contexts.” Ultimately, the court determined that the emergency aid exception could be applied to emergency assistance of animals if an officer has an “objectively reasonable basis to believe that there may be an animal inside [the home] who is injured or in imminent danger of physical harm.” The matter was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. | Case |
| MI - Newaygo - Breed - Sec. 6-9. Vicious dogs. (Pit Bull Ordinance) | NEWAYGO, MI., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 6-9 |
In Newaygo, Michigan, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess any pit bull dog or other vicious dog. Dogs registered as of the effective date of the ordinance may remain if the owner complies with certain requirements, such as posting a "Beware of Dog" sign, taking photographs for identification purposes, and keeping the dog on a leash and using a muzzle. A violation may result in a fine or imprisonment. The dog may also be impounded, confined to the premises of the owner, removed from the city, or killed. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Kovnat v. Xanterra Parks and Resorts | 770 F.3d 949 (10th Cir. 2014) |
In this case, Corrine Kovnat filed suit against Xanterra Parks and Resorts (Xanterra) alleging that it was negligent in connection with the injuries she sustained while horseback riding in Yellowstone National Park. Kovnat argued that Xanterra was negligent because the cinch on the saddle was too loose and her stirrups were uneven. The district court reviewed the issue and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, Xanterra. The court held that under Wyoming’s Recreational Safety Act, Xanterra owed no duty of care to protect Kovnat from the injuries she sustained. Kovnat appealed the district court’s ruling and the court of appeals affirmed in part and denied in part the district court’s ruling. Ultimately, the court of appeals found that summary judgment was only proper for Kovnat’s claim regarding the loose cinch but was not proper for the issue of the uneven stirrups. The court of appeals came to this conclusion after examining the Recreational Safety Act and finding that Xanterra cannot be held liable for any risks that are “inherent to the sport of horseback riding.” The court determined that the loose cinch was a reasonable risk that was inherent to the sport of horseback riding while the uneven stirrups were not. For this reason, the court of appeals remanded the case for further proceedings with regard to the issue of the uneven stirrups. |
Case | |
| Beckwith v. Weber | 277 P.3d 713 (Wyo. 2012) | 2012 WL 1415598 (Wyo. 2012); 2012 WY 62 |
While on vacation at a ranch in Wyoming, plaintiff was thrown or fell from a horse that stepped in a large badger hole. Allegedly, the trail guide left the plaintiff and her husband at the scene in order to get help. Worried about potential wildlife attacks, the plaintiff and her husband walked to a nearby residence for assistance. The plaintiff later brought a negligence suit against the ranch for injuries she had sustained during the fall. At trial, the jury verdict stated the plaintiff had assumed the risk and the plaintiff was therefore not entitled to damages. On appeal, the plaintiff challenged a jury instruction and asserted the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded costs to the ranch. The plaintiff did not prevail on either claim. |
Case |
| Map of State Dog Tethering Laws | As of 2023, about twenty-three (23) states have laws that limit or otherwise control how owners can tether their dogs. Tethering or chaining a dog under most state laws means that a person ties a dog with a rope or line to a stationary object. While the laws themselves vary from state to state, they do have several consistent features. Some laws that address tethering allow a dog to be tethered for a reasonable period of time. Other states include tethering as part of their anti-cruelty chapters. Indiana defines “neglect” as restraining an animal for more than a brief period in a manner that endangers the animal's life or health by the use of a rope, chain, or tether. Some states specify the manner in which a dog must be tethered or chained (i.e., that a tether must be at least 6 feet long or at least 3 times the length of the dog as measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail). This map gives links to these laws. | State map |